Croydon yet another area to introduce Selective Licensing

Thank you, Sharon, David, Monty and everyone else for your helpful comments and support.

For the record, though, I would just like to point out to John that the Croydon scheme is being quoted as being £200 a year per property - however, I gather (especially from reading about how other councils run their schemes) that this would be payable upfront at the outset - £1000 per property.
To a small landlord such as myself, that £1000 is my maintenance budget for the year - I will be put in a position where I will have no choice but to remortgage - assuming that given the current tightening of mortgage regulations I can get a further advance!

Reply to the comment left by "John Daley" at "11/07/2014 - 12:18":

But if most of the rogue operators have "previous" as many do, then use existing powers on them (though I agree sentences should be much higher and councils should be able to keep more of the money raised - both sensible proposals from the Local Govt Assocn, I understand)

Re the statistics, I seem to recall the officer from Newham at the CIH meeting where we both spoke admitting that the out turn was that they discovered they had underestimated the size of the private rented sector there by some 20% or so..... so this is not insignificant, leading me to question if antisocial behaviour was higher in the private rent sector in first place.

David Lawrenson

Further to this, Chris Wright from Twinpier has started a campaign to get the issue of councils using ASB and low demand as reasons to bring in selective licensing (when the evidence is tenuous at best) heard before a Dept of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) select committee by the Autumn of 2014.

He needs signatures from landlords and other stakeholders in addition to accounts of how you might have been affected by this - ALL DETAILS IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE!

As he has pointed out, this isn't simply about the licensing fee; once a local authority has selective licensing in place, they are free to impose whatever restrictions and regulations they want - so if, for example, your tenant doesn't always deal with their rubbish, or holds a party, you could potentially be fined or criminalised.

You might say that your council is led by reasonable people, who apply this fairly, but what happens when there's an election and they're replaced by an administration with more extreme policies? Remember voters are more likely to cast protest votes and elect fringe and extremist parties at local elections than at a national level.

Please visit this link http://twinpier.co.uk/selective-licensing/ to lend your support - IN THE STRICTEST CONFIDENCE!

Thank you.

Hello John,

"Only large HMO’s are currently licensed, there is a growing problem of family letting being converted and subdivided into small HMO’s often without building control or planning. The overcrowding, poor condition and management are getting much worse."

If that is the problem in a specific area, then LA's have the discretionary power to licence small HMO's.

"The LA knows who the HB goes to but unless the resident raises an issue then there is no cause of action."

LA should be carrying out basic, rudimentary checks before paying out HB to ensure taxpayers money is being spent in the manner for which it was intended.
But they don't because they couldn't cope with the ensuing chaos that would cause. They know full well where the problem areas are but it is far easier to turn a blind eye and target good landlords instead.

"To address your last point the strength of licensing is that over time the LA gathers a far better picture of the market and who is operating."

It gathers a picture of the good landlords, which is what licensing is really all about.
-targeting good landlords. For proof of this look no further than the failed Scottish experiment.

"The number of unlicensed properties will reduce"

It hasn't happened in Scotland and it isn't happening in Newham.

"Most of the schemes I have seen are a pound or two a week"

Justifying something because it works out cheaply when spread out on a weekly basis is no real argument at all.
Besides which, as Mandy points out for the Croydon scheme, it is not cheap. It could be an upfront fee of a £1000 per property.

The early prosecutions for failing to license will be a clear deterrent particularly if the fines are stinging.

It clearly hasn't worked in Newham. More than 10,000 unlicensed properties and they have only had 134 prosecutions, most of whom could have been prosecuted under the existing legislation anyway.

All that time, money, effort and resources would have been far better spent targeting rogue landlords rather than creating a huge bureaucratic empire for administering good landlords.

Thanks Mandy - interesting information regarding Selective Licensing is coming in all the time from LL's across the UK, it's going to be quite a job to put this infront of the DCLG select committee. Clearly we'll need to push the issues which effect the majority and leave the door open for the DCLGCOM to make recommendations that create a process for LL's to keep the feet of councils well and truely in the fire! - Changes to primary legislation are not going to happen so I urge LL's not to sit back and "take the win" or to assume this won't effect them, these schemes are rolling out and even areas who said they wouldn't think of doing Selective Licensing are seeing £££ in their eyes! - Regards to all

Chris Wright - Selective Licensing Campaign

I cant help but thinking that the more legislation you throw at the landlording business, the more advantageous it is to be a rogue. Landlording was at its most regulated in the 60s and 70s with rent controls and assured tenancies etc. At a time when the Rachmans and the Heseltines would turf you out on the street at a moments notice. Evictions were impossible. Evicting a tenant now is harder than ever - section 8 mandatory evictions are anything but with defensible grounds nearly always holding up proceedings in the tenants favour. Now I understand that section 21 evictions are to be redraughted to incorporate repair issues as a defence to prevent eviction.
It will be easier to illegally evict people than follow the law.
I know I have strayed off point a little here, but why are the people involved in the business of supplying housing treated so differently to those supplying food?
As an ex con I can set up a chain of foodstores, prosecute those who steal from me and evict thieves from my premises. The comparisons are endless yet the treatment by the lawmakers could not be more different...

Reply to the comment left by "Monty Bodkin" at "13/07/2014 - 13:41":

Agree, Scottish experience has been an absolute shambles... see DTZ's report (Scot Exec's own consultants report).

Reply to the comment left by "David Lawrenson" at "16/07/2014 - 12:52":

When one hires a consultant to review what one has done, they usually give you a glowing report... consultants aren't dumb, they know who paid their fee, after all.

So when the Scottish Exec hired DTZ to review their landlords registrations scheme, the dear old venerable property firm did their best, but read it carefully and you can see what a shambles the scheme has been. Here is the link:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/07/13091422/1

David Lawrenson

David - good post, so is this not a Breach of hemming v westminster case?!

"no clear understanding of the overall administrative costs of landlord registration and this is not taken into account in any of the fee structures"

By the way nice speaking to you the other day.

Regards
Chris

Reply to the comment left by "david dahill" at "16/07/2014 - 08:07":

I should point out that I myself am not actually an ex con.....